Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning I am very pleased to join Senator Frist of Tennessee, who is an outstanding Senator, and also a doctor, who has been very helpful to me, and a lot of Senators, since he joined this body, in introducing legislation entitled ``The Women's Health Research and Prevention Act.'' The bill authorizes and reauthorizes a collection of first-class research and prevention programs in the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women between the ages of 40 and 55. About one out of every eight women in the United States will, unfortunately, develop breast cancer during their lifetime. And so the Frist-Lott bill reauthorizes breast and ovarian cancer research and education programs at NIH. Osteoporosis is a disease in which bones become fragile and more likely to break. My wife is beginning to confront this particular problem. As women age, they lose bone mass and are at risk of debilitating accidents such as fractures. This bill extends osteoporosis research and education programs at NIH. Women's health, though, means more than just health issues specific to women. Heart disease, for instance, the No. 1 killer in the U.S. of women, of course, also affects men in great numbers. Hypertension, a leading cause of heart disease, is two to three times more common in women than in men. In addition to these three key research areas, our bill continues programs in the Centers for Disease Control, including the National Program of Cancer Registries and the National Early Detection Program for breast and cervical cancer. Senator Frist, the Senate's only doctor, and an outstanding heart surgeon himself, provided the details of the bill. Senator Frist is chairman of the Senate Public Health Subcommittee of the Senate Labor Committee, and is one of the Senate's key leaders on all of our health issues. I am pleased that he is also serving on our Medicare commission that had its first meeting yesterday, including a meeting with the President. I have often turned to him for advice and guidance on health matters, and will continue to do so in the future. I believe that just this morning Senator Frist attended a meeting regarding Medicare, and that will be helpful in this effort. I know it will be a bipartisan effort. I encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important legislation. This morning I was made aware that Senator Mack is a cosponsor, and Senator D'Amato. We are inviting all Members to join us in this very serious and very important issue that we need to act on in order to reauthorize some of these programs and authorize new ones. I thank Senator Frist for his leadership in this area, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have scheduled two more votes at approximately 10:30. Is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to use leader time just to make reference to the Budget Office report. I will use my leader time to make some brief remarks. I believe Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, will want to respond also.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, yesterday the Congressional Budget Office delivered its preliminary report on the President's budget proposal. The news is both astonishing and disappointing. It raises the most serious questions about the President's credibility when dealing with the budget. Five weeks ago, in his State of the Union address, the President made a promise to the American people. I want to quote from his speech. The President asked and answered a very important question. He said: What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple, four-word answer: Save Social Security first. I thought to myself, that sounded like a pretty good idea. But that's not what the President's budget does. The President's budget spends $43 billion of the projected future surpluses. I invite my colleagues to look at the CBO report. It is right on page 1 of that report: The policies outlined in the President's budget will decrease the surplus in each year from 1999 through 2003. While the President says he wants to save Social Security first, instead, his budget spends the surplus first. Mr. President, what ever happened to preserving 100 percent of the surplus for this purpose? To me, 100 percent means reserving all of it, not all of it except $43 billion that you want to spend. What happened to saving ``every penny of any surplus until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen Social Security?'' Does every penny mean every penny except $43 billion? There is some other bad news in this report as well. I will let the chairman of the Budget Committee provide more detail, but I want to give just two highlights. The President's budget spends so much money that it goes into the red in the year 2000. That's right, after all of our hard work last year to balance the budget, and with a lot of help from a growing, booming economy, the President now proposes to send us back into deficits again that soon. If you are following along in the CBO report, that, too, is on page 1 as well. We have not gotten into the rest of it. That is really a depressing thought to me. It took us almost 30 years to get big Government on the wagon, so to speak, and now the President wants us to steer back to the saloon for one more round of spending. There is one more point that means a lot to people around here. A critical part of last year's bipartisan budget agreement, which the Speaker and I forged with the cooperation of Democrats and the President, was the creation of caps on discretionary spending. CBO tells us that the President's budget will break those caps by $68 billion over the next 5 years. What good is a budget agreement if the President immediately proposes to violate it? What good is balancing the budget if the President proposes to spend his way back into deficit? And, most important, what good is it to promise that you are going to save Social Security first, when the budget you propose redirects $43 billion of that goal? The President sent us a budget 6 days after his promise to save Social Security first. It took only 6 days for that to fall by the wayside. I have to ask the question, what's next, Mr. President? I yield the floor and I yield 3 minutes of my leader time to the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment, it would require States to enact the .08 alcohol content legislation instead of the present, I think, .10 level of alcohol to be considered drunk. That has to be done by September 30, 2000. Noncompliant States would lose 5 percent of highway funding on October 1, 2000, and then 10 percent thereafter. Currently, 15 States already have the .08 level of alcohol content to be considered drunk in drunk driving cases. Mr. President, I think we should encourage people not to drink. We should encourage all people not to drink excessively. We should do all that we can to get the States to pass the lower level of .08. I support that. We need to combat the problem of drunken driving. I understand the tragedy and the ravages of people that drink and drive. My father was killed in just such an accident. So this is not an issue that I take lightly. But I will oppose this amendment. This is a typical Federal Government attitude--not to encourage you to do right, not to say if you do the right thing, there will be incentives in it for you; no; you do it our way, or we will punish you; you will lose funds if you don't do it the way we say. Some people say President Reagan did the same thing. Yes, and I opposed it then, too. I am very much opposed to alcoholism and drinking and driving. But for us to stand here and pontificate about how you must do it our way, that this is the solution, or we are going to take your funds away, what about poor States like mine where people are killed every week because of bad roads, potholes in the roads, dangerous bridges? What about safety? If a State, for whatever reason, by mistake or obviously for the wrong reasons, doesn't do it, we take a big chunk of money away from them. Is that going to save lives? No. As a matter of fact, it may lead to more lives being lost. So while I know this is well-intentioned, and while I support the intent or the goals of this legislation, the idea that we are going to punish States because you don't do it our way I think is the wrong thing to be doing. I hope my colleagues will think about this very, very seriously before they cast a vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate will resume consideration now of S. 1173, the ISTEA surface transportation reauthorization legislation. As under the consent agreement, the Senate will conclude 1 hour of debate on the DeWine-Lautenberg amendment regarding alcohol levels, with a vote occurring on or in relation to the DeWine-Lautenberg amendment at approximately 10:30 this morning. Following that vote, it's hoped that the Senate will be able to debate an amendment dealing with funding levels. In addition, this afternoon the Senate will hopefully debate an amendment to be offered by Senator McConnell. Therefore, Members should be prepared for votes throughout today's session. As a reminder to all Senators, the first rollcall vote today will occur at 10:30 a.m. I urge the Senate to work hard to make progress today. If we can have this debate and vote at 10:30 and go to the funding level resolution and hopefully find a way to complete that today and move on to the McConnell amendment and hopefully get to a vote on that, a great deal can be accomplished today and we can move the bill along considerably. Mr. President, I would like to yield myself leader time so that I may comment on the Lautenberg amendment briefly.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 1998 in closed/ open session, to receive testimony on the seapower threat-based force requirement in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1999 and the future years defense program.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 3, 1998, to conduct a hearing on S. 1405, the ``Financial Regulatory Relief and Economic Efficiency Act (FRREE).''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 3, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. on tobacco legislation.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 3, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to consider the President's proposed budget for FY1999 for the U.S. Forest Service.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a business meeting to consider amendments to S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, Tuesday, March 3, 1998, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 3, 1998 at 2:15 pm to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the senate on Tuesday, March 3, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in room 216 of the senate hart office building to hold a hearing on ``Market Power and Structural Change in the Software Industry.''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, be authorized to meet for a hearing on Global Health: United States Response to Infectious Diseases during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 3, 1998, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 1998, in open session, to receive testimony on the Department of Defense Science and technology programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1999 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since the 1960s, the Senate has recognized those dedicated Members who preside over the Senate for 100 hours with the Golden Gavel Award. Today, we add to the list of Golden Gavel recipients the current Presiding Officer, Senator Pat Roberts of the great State of Kansas, whose presiding hours now total over 100 hours, effective as of today. I want to say this, too: I have found that, as Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts is reliable and enthusiastic. He maintains order, sometimes running the majority leader from the floor of the Senate Chamber if he insists on talking when not properly recognized. He maintains order with a firm hand, but, most importantly, he is consistently willing to come to the Chamber and preside over the activities here in this Chamber. He is able to handle problems that arise in an appropriate way and without hesitation. So it is with sincere appreciation that I announce the newest recipient of the Golden Gavel Award, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas. I have already determined that when we have moments of really important legislation, and when rulings of the Chair are going to be necessary and need to be made rather quickly so we can complete the business of the day, we have a new suspect that can assume the position as Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts of Kansas. Thank you very much for the job you have done in helping us to preside and keep the Chamber in order. [Applause.]

Mr. LOTT. I think it would be appropriate just to be made part of the Record. I appreciate the ruling of the Chair on this matter, which I did not ask a question about. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for yielding me this moment of time. It won't be long.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished Minority Leader, the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and with the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan. Both Senator Moynihan and Senator Helms served with distinction on the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. They are to be congratulated for their efforts. Senator Moynihan and I have spoken repeatedly about his commitment to declassifying information while protecting legitimate secrets. S. 712, the Government Secrecy Act of 1997, is a complex piece of legislation. Chairman Thompson has already held a hearing in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Other committees have legitimate and appropriate concerns about elements of this legislation, including Foreign Relations, Judiciary, Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence on which I serve as an ex officio member. Their concerns should be addressed as we move through the legislative process. I also have a number of concerns that I hope are addressed as the committees consider this legislation. I am concerned about allowing judicial review of executive branch classification decisions. I do not think it is wise or necessary to allow judges to second-guess classification decisions. I am concerned about cost--the cost of classification and the cost of declassification. I hope we can arrive at a legislative outcome that reduces the cost of both. I am concerned about creating a new layer of bureaucracy in an already overly bureaucratic process. It is the agencies themselves that should retain the authority to declassify documents. I am most concerned that we give priority to protecting intelligence sources and methods rather than to a vague and subjective ``public interest'' test. We need to ensure that originating agencies are expressly involved in any declassification process to avoid the mistakes that have recently been made. I also hope there is adequate authority for agencies to meet their legitimate budgetary and source-protection concerns. I am confident that the deliberative process of committee consideration will address my concerns and the legitimate concerns expressed by the Defense Department, the intelligence community, and others. I know that the Director of Central Intelligence testified last month that he wants to sit down with Senator Moynihan and address those concerns in such a way that we protect sources and methods while opening more old intelligence files to the serious researcher and the general public. I hope that this process of committee consideration can be completed this spring and that we can expeditiously schedule floor time for legislation addressing this important issue. I want to close with a special tribute to Senator Moynihan's diligence in this effort. He is not just motivated by the fact that too much information is classified and is kept secret too long. He is also motivated by a scholar's desire to know the truth, and by the historian's desire to fully explain past events. I salute his efforts and share his concerns. Openness is important in our democracy. In the words of the Secrecy Commission, chaired by Senator Moynihan, ``Secrecy is a form of government regulation . . . some secrecy is vital to save lives, bring miscreants to justice, protect national security, and engage in effective diplomacy . . . National Security will continue to be the first of our national concerns, but we also need to develop methods for the treatment of government information that better serve, not undermine, this objective.'' In the words of Chairman Moynihan himself: ``It is time also to assert certain American fundamentals, foremost of which is the right to know what government is doing, and the corresponding ability to judge its performance.'' I could not agree more. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Moynihan and others in enacting legislation on government secrecy this year.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I now ask unanimous consent that at 5:20 today, the Senate lay aside the pending business and turn to executive session to consider the nomination of Richard Young, of Indiana, to be U.S. District Judge for Indiana, that the time be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, and the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on the nomination, without further debate, at 5:30.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to order the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.